That Wacky Redhead

[NCW8]

Because even a Swiss speaking High German is hard to understand for a German. And remember that Switzerland has four main languages (German, French, Italian and Rhaeto-Romanic).

True, but I was refering to interviews in German which even I didn't have any trouble understanding.

Cheers,
Nigel.

 

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

True, but I was refering to interviews in German which even I didn't have any trouble understanding.

Cheers,
Nigel.

Then perhaps the subtitles are made for those Swiss who do not speak german as their primary language?

 

[NCW8]

Then perhaps the subtitles are made for those Swiss who do not speak german as their primary language?

On broadcasts from Germany ? In the examples I've seen, Germans in the same programme weren't subtitled. It looks more like a policy decision that all Swiss need to be subtitled no matter how they are talking.

Cheers,
Nigel.

 

[Brainbin]

And now for a slightly abridged set of responses to your many lovely replies:

FWIW, it seems to me that your Readership is a self-selecting group that enables such conversations to be conducted with the courtesy and dare I say it, maturity, displayed to date.

Most of your Readers have been along for the ride for a while now and (IMHO) have a 'feel' for those they find themselves interacting with.
That tends to create an atmosphere where tangential discussions develop naturally.

Granted there may be other places on this site where such Topics are specifically encouraged but all too often those conversations degenerate into snarkiness.
Or, worse still, one cannot 'hear' the interesting voices over the babbling hordes.

Still, I'm sure none of your Readers would wish to make you feel uncomfortable.
At least, that's my sense of things from what I've seen.

I'll address this point first, before I continue on with the others. I absolutely trust my regulars, semi-regulars, and proven newcomers to remain civil and respectful in discussing any controversial topics - however, there's always the potential for drive-by commenters who might have far less esteem for the decorum of this thread. We've certainly seen other timelines derailed by loaded arguments, and I prefer to err on the side of caution. As it stands right now, I certainly don't intend to single anyone out.

I'm 38, a non-smoker, but both of my parents were smokers growing up.

Another never-smoker! I'm pleasantly surprised that so many of my Generation X (and/or late Boomer) readers never took it up.

Does that mean you were born in 1973, or 1974? I sort my posters by year of birth, and you're one of the four "asterisk" data points whose ages I have, but not when they were born. The other three I can wait out until the end of the year, but since you haven't supplied your age on your profile, I have to ask. Thanks for understanding

Here's my take on it: the entirety of our current view on smoking can be traced, rather directly, to C. Everett Koop, Reagan's Surgeon General.

I really like this theory, and it helps to explain some cultural mores of the 1980s. One of the great decades of high-rolling and conspicuous consumption, and yet cigarettes are curiously absent from depictions thereof (both then and now). You see cigars sometimes, but mostly smoking seems to have been supplanted by cocaine; the famed "glamour drug of the '80s", which seemed to touch every strata of society, in all its myriad forms, from the brim to the dregs.

Looks like it's just me then.

Statistically, it was bound to be someone. Would you be willing to admit that you fall within that "stubborn" exception I mentioned before?

I dunno, from what I know the concept was originally created by Coppola in the late 1960's, with the working title "The Psychadelic Soldier". Something in me doubts he would rework it as a straight adaptation of Heart of Darkness or as something else entirely (say, a science fiction film set on another planet). The way it was, Apocalypse Now was on the cutting edge of the cultural zeitgeist, and without those conditions, I doubt Coppola would have much interest in producing the film.

I've always thought that a more faithful adaptation of Hearts of Darkness might be more meaningful anyway. Films about the overseas quagmire have really been done to death, and Africa has been woefully neglected by the mass media over the past half-century, particularly the Middle African region which includes the former Belgian Congo, known as Zaire in this era. It would be just as easy to modify the anti-colonialist message to fit more modern and relevant problems in war-torn Central Africa.

Maybe it'll take the spot that IOTL is filled by Stanley Kubrick's Napoleon biopic as "the greatest film never made".

Very likely, since even IOTL, another contender for that title is Megalopolis, also (not) directed by Coppola.

How about the Romulans? I assume most of the more elaborate alien races (Gorn, Tholians, Talosians, ones who didn't show up IOTL) were pretty much "one-off" villains, with maybe some verbal references later on?

The main reason that the Romulans appeared so rarely in the series IOTL - two onscreen appearances, plus a third ("The Deadly Years") which was merely recycled spaceship footage - was because of makeup costs; apparently shoe polish was much cheaper than foam earpieces (this is also why both Romulans and Vulcans often wore helmets). That cost concern is gone ITTL, but by the same token, the writers (especially Fontana) would rather take advantage of that to tell Vulcan stories, not Romulan ones. Perhaps about once-a-season or so? Plus their two appearances in the series finale - that's seven (though they're only at the very end of part one in syndication - when their ship comes on screen and Uhura or Chekov dramatically announces "the Romulans!" and we hear that dramatic blast of fanfare). Say about six to eight; half as often as the Klingons.

This work?

That's just poi-fect

Yes, it was America's nightmare. I'd say it was really a combination of factors that instilled the cynicism that pervades much of modern American political/social/cultural discourse, with probably the Big Three events being JFK's assassination, the war, and Watergate. Here, you only have part of the equation, so I doubt that there's the critical mass necessary to have that feeling replicated.

And all three dominated the American cultural landscape for the last quarter of the 20th century, before a singular event supplanted them shortly into the 21st.

When I look into the future of your timeline, I see the 80's writ large. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Well, certainly not when we're speaking in pop cultural terms

I dunno, I think you're a bit too hard on "dark and gritty", though I freely admit I like edgy shows and movies. It's like when Alan Moore, who will go down in pop culture history as one of the guys who was responsible for the "dark and gritty" trend in media that has really continued to this day, was dismayed to see that other writers had taken the most shallow elements from Watchmen and thought that was all there was too it. It'd be like dismissing Star Trek as being in the same league as Lost in Space or the Adam West Batman series. You gotta judge each work of fiction by it's individual merits (though unless you're someone with a job like Roger Ebert's or just happen to have a lot of free time, it's kind of hard to expose yourself to enough media to make a judgment).

You raise an superb point with your Star Trek comparison. And of course you're right, in that you can't colour any work solely by its broader classification, because Sturgeon's Law applies equally to all of them. And your Watchmen point is well-founded, too: pioneers have sincerity and convictions on their side, whereas copycats don't care about anything but popularity. And that's the problem with the high saturation of the "darker and edgier" in popular culture today. It exists simply for its own sake, rather than to make a statement (although, when it does come to making statements, choosing to go dark usually reflects an "attack" on society - which Watchmen most certainly was). And in addition to media saturation, there's saturation within the work itself; I quite enjoy a taste of bitter to go with the sweet, but something unrelentingly grim and nihilistic, where it seems that the only reprieve is merely delaying the inevitable, utterly repels me. It's the same reason that I despise zombie apocalypse stories.

There were other things that raised awareness too, like the famous Yul Brynner ads.

Very true - that was about the era when celebrities started dropping like flies due to lung cancer (though, believe it or not, That Wacky Redhead was not one of them).

I had the same sort of reaction to any smoke as someone else in terms of finding it utterly replusive and prompting coughing being anywhere near a smoker.

Don't worry, you're not the only one. I try not to, but I honestly can't help it.

Plus, acceptance of a gay character in the '60s would have been so slim as to make it pretty hazardous even to imply it.

Well, obviously they couldn't have come out (har, har) and said anything outright, whether or not there was subtext. Even Paul Lynde had to stick to winking and nudging.

(Tho it does mean Robert Urich probably won't be playing him in a biopic... {Which is the only reason I know who he is. Rimsky-Korsakov, either.} Then again, if he's better, maybe Urich will anyhow. {Pick your favorite.})

No doubt someone will be playing him in a biopic, as happens to virtually all major pro athletes eventually, but it'll probably happen later on in his career (or post-career), and therefore it likely wouldn't be Urich. That said, I have no doubt that as prolific a journeyman actor as he would be able to find himself steady employment, as he did IOTL.

Do I detect an inclination to pander to the 18-24s?

They are the most desirable demographic out there, though the 25-34s are very important to me as well

That doesn't exclude him being TTL's Mayor Clint. (So long as he doesn't run for Mayor of Las Vegas.) Or Mayor Sonny.

Eastwood and Bono both ran for Mayor (of Carmel-by-the-Sea and Palm Springs, respectively) for what I understand to be deeply personal, idiosyncratic reasons - and you'll note that in the former case, it was a one-off, whereas in the latter, it led to a legislative career that lasted for the rest of his life. The key difference, of course, is that Takei ran for Council, not for Mayor - only the one time, for whatever reason, and then served on advisory boards related to city planning through the rest of the 1970s IOTL.

I agree. There are some hints of vulcan humour even in TOS. For example, at the end of Mirror, Mirror, Spock's description of Kirk and McKoy's counterparts as "brutal, unprincipled, uncivilized, treacherous; in every way splendid examples of 'Homo sapiens'".

Spock definitely had a wonderfully snarky sense of humour, which is why it baffles me when people accuse Bones of "picking on" him; he clearly gave as good as he got. In fact, I really enjoy the relationship between the two of them; they clearly respected and cared for each other despite their radically different ideologies. Obviously, this was part of the message of tolerance and understanding, but it was done so well; I credit the terrific chemistry between Nimoy and Kelley, surely the two finest actors in the cast.

You needn't only imagine because it was done and continues to be done.

Insurance companies adjust their rates according to, among other things, whether the insured smokes or not, the insurance rates offered to companies depend on how man smokers are employed, and some companies won't even grant coverage to smokers.

If the actuaries have worked out the cost benefit analysis for private health insurers, you can bet your last Camel they've done the same for governments with UHC.

Welcome aboard, Flubber! Your point is an excellent one, and no doubt entirely accurate. An entire field (macroeconomics) is devoted to the study of these very situations.

As a kid, meaning mostly pre-teen, I never had a bedtime later than 11, and The Tonight Show was on at 11:30 in the NYC area. I was impossible to get to bed and keep in bed, though, before 12, a rule which has probably held true most of my life. My sister benefited from my fighting over bed times, she started at 11 and quickly went to whenever. Grrrr! I liked David Letterman, as well, who was on at 12:30... Of course, all of this became moot when I got my own TV. Well, so long as I kept it quiet enough not to be found out, of course!

At one point, my bedtime was tied to my age: 7:00 at age seven, 8:00 at age eight, 9:00 at age nine (I don't remember what it was before age seven). I naturally expected that I could move on to 10:00 at age ten, but no such luck there. It had to be a few years before I finally reached that threshold, maybe about age 12. Then 11:00 became my "soft bedtime" in high school. I actually used to tape late-night programming, because I certainly never stayed up to watch it.

Seeing as I've enjoyed your previous recommendation ("Now Blooms The Tudor Rose") so much, I think I'm obliged to give that one a go.

You won't regret it

Today while at Grandma's, she was watching Mytv (a digital tv "network" devoted to showing old TV). They aired a brief commercial segment honoring him, and showing clips from "Five Characters in Search of an Exit," a Twilight Zone episode he appeared in.

I'm glad to hear that - he deserves nothing less. He had a long and distinguished career in television.

PS to everybody: stop posting so much! The alerts are turning up in my junk mail folder.

Then put AH.com on your safe list! (I always enjoy comments, so please keep them coming. If I have a problem, I'll let everyone know, as I already have.)

This drives me crazy! For anyone with a slight accent, lately in the US, they have been throwing up subtitles. It doesn't even have to be a foreign person or someone who does not speak English as their primary language, it can be an American that the editor or whomever has decided speaks too differently from... Er, whomever the subtitle guy thinks they are trying to reach, I guess. Sometimes it is totally inexplicable as to why they are subtitling a person. It can even be that the person is taking more care to enunciate their words properly and is speaking more clearly than a person normally does (but in the effort sounds strange, thus meriting subtitles?) Perhaps it is a roundabout way to get people to read more? I don't know if this is just a US thing, but I do hope it is a temporary fad in the TV world.

I've noticed that, too. I don't think it's actively malicious; TIIC simply choose to take the risk of offending in order to ensure optimal viewer comprehension.

Remember, viewers are idiots, and nobody believes that more than your average network executive.

I noticed that the timeline is getting to the point where Paramount was considering a "fourth" network with Star Trek: Phase II as its flagship program OTL. Will we see something similar ITTL?

Excellent question. Well, Paramount (being part of a major conglomerate) is one of the few entities in Hollywood that could bear the kind of financing necessary to launch a fourth network in this era, but the problem is that doesn't really have the assets to do such a thing ITTL (and it really didn't IOTL, either). The purse-strings are being controlled by the notorious miser Charles Bluhdorn, who scoffed at the notion IOTL, and I see no reason why he wouldn't ITTL. Also worth noting is that the strongest advocate of the fourth network within Paramount was Barry Diller, who may be working for a completely different company, given butterflies. (You will note that Diller left Paramount for 20th Century Fox IOTL, and found a certain magnate who was a great deal more freewheeling than Bluhdorn, and backed his proposal).

 

[Andrew T]

Does that mean you were born in 1973, or 1974? I sort my posters by year of birth, and you're one of the four "asterisk" data points whose ages I have, but not when they were born. The other three I can wait out until the end of the year, but since you haven't supplied your age on your profile, I have to ask. Thanks for understanding

10-7-73. I'll look for my birthday present in my inbox.

 

[Unknown]

Tom Hulett is a good replacement for the unlamented Parker. OTL, he managed Elvis's concerts and Jimi Hendrix's concerts (I assume Hendrix died like in OTL, since his drug use predated the PoD).

Does RFK still die like in OTL?

 

[vultan]

I've always thought that a more faithful adaptation of Hearts of Darkness might be more meaningful anyway. Films about the overseas quagmire have really been done to death, and Africa has been woefully neglected by the mass media over the past half-century, particularly the Middle African region which includes the former Belgian Congo, known as Zaire in this era. It would be just as easy to modify the anti-colonialist message to fit more modern and relevant problems in war-torn Central Africa.

Right, but I'm not sure that it would be a Francis Ford Coppola film. From what I can tell, Coppola really wanted to make a movie set during the war, and I'm not sure if a straight adaptation would really entice him.

Fortunately, he isn't the only part of the equation. John Milius wrote the first draft of the screenplay in the late 1960's, the one that got Coppola's attention (further suggesting that Francis would be ambivalent at best about a Heart of Darkness adaptation), and may decide to work on the project himself with the encouragement of his buddies Spielberg, Lucas, and Coppola. He'd of course have to rework it (un-rework it?) into a straight adaptation of Conrad's novel. It may very well be his directorial debut in this world instead of Conan the Barbarian.

An influential film about colonial Africa that serves as a metaphor for the plight of post-colonial Africa (that isn't set in South Africa, because that's rather cliche at this point) would have some interesting effects, though...

 

[phx1138]

Then put AH.com on your safe list!

I was kidding...

That said, I've never even looked for a safe list... (Now that I have, if Hotmail has one, I can't even find it...) I mostly just get junk anyhow. And my AH alerts have never turned up as junk before.

I'm pleasantly surprised that so many of my Generation X (and/or late Boomer) readers never took it up.

I wonder how much of that is because of personality. I've heard a lot of the reason kids start smoking is to gain social acceptance. How many of us didn't either because we didn't have it, or didn't care?

Well, obviously they couldn't have come out (har, har)

You should be writing for Letterman. (After all, somebody should.)

later on in his career (or post-career), and therefore it likely wouldn't be Urich.

It's probably too late, but my other choice would be Dean Cain. (If I was rebooting "Vega$", he'd be my guy. I'd give him the '02 T-bird, tho.)

That said, I have no doubt that as prolific a journeyman actor as he would be able to find himself steady employment, as he did IOTL.

I've no fear for Urich's career. It's just this particular film, this particular portrayal, was my fave of his.

They are the most desirable demographic out there, though the 25-34s are very important to me as well

Eastwood and Bono both ran for Mayor (of Carmel-by-the-Sea and Palm Springs, respectively) for what I understand to be deeply personal, idiosyncratic reasons

Noted. I wasn't aware Sonny'd done it for personal reasons, but I know Clint ran more/less for one issue, & when that was settled, he was done. (Fortunately, Carmel didn't get blown up. {Whence the previous link...})

Takei ran for Council, not for Mayor - only the one time, for whatever reason, and then served on advisory boards related to city planning through the rest of the 1970s IOTL.

It suggests that was also for personal reasons, & he went for the positions that would let him have the kind of influence he wanted. Perhaps also a sense going for Mayor would attract unwanted media attention on his private life.

Spock definitely had a wonderfully snarky sense of humour, which is why it baffles me when people accuse Bones of "picking on" him; he clearly gave as good as he got. In fact, I really enjoy the relationship between the two of them; they clearly respected and cared for each other despite their radically different ideologies. Obviously, this was part of the message of tolerance and understanding, but it was done so well; I credit the terrific chemistry between Nimoy and Kelley, surely the two finest actors in the cast.

I agree with all of that. Spock was no defenseless child. Nor would McCoy have gone after him so much, & so hard, if he had been. (Tho there was one time it was plain mean.) The chemistry was excellent, & the ease of these two fine actors in their characters was clear. They added a dimension without which "ST" wouldn't have been half so good. I honestly can't imagine what it would've been like without them. (Nor, TBH, do I really want to.) I'm not at all sure I'd want to watch "ST" without the two of them in it somewhere. (I'm just waiting for somebody to tell me neither was TTL.)

I actually used to tape late-night programming, because I certainly never stayed up to watch it.

Count yourself lucky you could. I'd have killed for a VCR when I was 10. For one thing, I'd still know the names of all those CBC French movies I watched. (Then again, given the choice, I'd rather have stayed up late & slept in anyhow...)

I'm glad to hear that - he deserves nothing less. He had a long and distinguished career in television.

It's a bit odd I haven't noticed TCM doing a "retrospective ad" for him. Maybe I missed it.

 

[Falkenburg]

Statistically, it was bound to be someone. Would you be willing to admit that you fall within that "stubborn" exception I mentioned before?

Stubborn? Moi?

I've always thought that a more faithful adaptation of Hearts of Darkness might be more meaningful anyway.

Without the ongoing horrifying spectacle of The Quagmire monopolising American (and others) attention that does seem quite possible.

Is it plausible to assume that the less vigorous pursuit of Armed Tourism may have led to a different cultural perception and/or profile of the Peace Corps and its activities?

That could generate a wealth of 'American Stories' that would seem fertile ground for film-makers, writers and polemicists.

Indeed a less distracted (and subsequently wounded) US could be more emotionally engaged with the Developing World as a whole.

It is perhaps too hopeful to think that a curtailed Quagmire might entirely abort some of the more despicable interventions (especially in Latin America) but it does seem plausible that there may be less of a domestic political perception that such actions must necessarily be covert.

At the very least that might mitigate some of the worst excesses.

Falkenburg

 

[phx1138]

Is it plausible to assume that the less vigorous pursuit of Armed Tourism may have led to a different cultural perception and/or profile of the Peace Corps and its activities?

Two things come to my mind. One, you could see more money into, & more emphasis on, Peace Corps. Two, you could see greater U.S. Government willingness to become involved in other overseas adventures. Can you say Cambodia? Beirut? Afghanistan?

So, I ask myself, was the Notorious Overseas Adventure sufficiently quagmiry to persuade government to stay out of potential quicksand, while at the same time not producing a scarring of the national psyche (& a string of awful war films)?

Does this sound mutually exclusive? Yes. Is it? IDK. I can see both happening. I don't see reasons to exclude either.

Indeed a less distracted (and subsequently wounded) US could be more emotionally engaged with the Developing World as a whole.

It could. I fear, tho, the still-extant anti-Communist paranoia, & the tendency to distrust non-fascist governments in the 3d World, what may happen instead is more meddling & potentially worse-than-OTL outcomes.

It is perhaps too hopeful to think that a curtailed Quagmire might entirely abort some of the more despicable interventions (especially in Latin America) but it does seem plausible that there may be less of a domestic political perception that such actions must necessarily be covert.

And instead see the likes of Grenada or Panama, over & over...? Or, perhaps, something closely resembling Clear and Present Danger.

 

[unclepatrick]

Right, but I'm not sure that it would be a Francis Ford Coppola film. From what I can tell, Coppola really wanted to make a movie set during the war, and I'm not sure if a straight adaptation would really entice him.

Fortunately, he isn't the only part of the equation. John Milius wrote the first draft of the screenplay in the late 1960's, the one that got Coppola's attention (further suggesting that Francis would be ambivalent at best about a Heart of Darkness adaptation), and may decide to work on the project himself with the encouragement of his buddies Spielberg, Lucas, and Coppola. He'd of course have to rework it (un-rework it?) into a straight adaptation of Conrad's novel. It may very well be his directorial debut in this world instead of Conan the Barbarian.

An influential film about colonial Africa that serves as a metaphor for the plight of post-colonial Africa (that isn't set in South Africa, because that's rather cliche at this point) would have some interesting effects, though...

I still wish Orson Well was able to do his version of Heart of Darkness in 1938. It would have either been one of the greatest films ever, or Orson Who?
The closest I seen to a great version of Heart of Darkness was the quoting of Heart of Darkness in Peter Jackson's King Kong. At that moment I wish that he done Heart of Darkness instead. He has a visual style that would work and I think that part of the film give a idea of how he would handle the work.

 

[vultan]

I still wish Orson Well was able to do his version of Heart of Darkness in 1938. It would have either been one of the greatest films ever, or Orson Who?
The closest I seen to a great version of Heart of Darkness was the quoting of Heart of Darkness in Peter Jackson's King Kong. At that moment I wish that he done Heart of Darkness instead. He has a visual style that would work and I think that part of the film give a idea of how he would handle the work.

I just had the thought of a King Kong movie made in the 1970's that had the feel and style of Apocalypse Now.

 

[phx1138]

I just had the thought of a King Kong movie made in the 1970's that had the feel and style of Apocalypse Now.

Frank Buck meets Col Kurtz.

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

Very true - that was about the era when celebrities started dropping like flies due to lung cancer (though, believe it or not, That Wacky Redhead was not one of them).

I never took up smoking and never understood why, eitehr - like stevep said it just looked so disgusting. My grandparents (who I was around a lot) smoke, but not my parents. They tried to quit at times but could only cut back some. (Born late '69 in case I didn't tell you before; birthday only weeks away) It just seemed so illogical. (Nice transiton, huh?)

Spock definitely had a wonderfully snarky sense of humour, which is why it baffles me when people accuse Bones of "picking on" him; he clearly gave as good as he got. In fact, I really enjoy the relationship between the two of them; they clearly respected and cared for each other despite their radically different ideologies. Obviously, this was part of the message of tolerance and understanding, but it was done so well; I credit the terrific chemistry between Nimoy and Kelley, surely the two finest actors in the cast.

I think people only think of Bones picking on Spock becasue of the minority thing, Bones being a Southerner. I enjoyed Spock's sense of humor, too. To me, the chemistry reminds me of how teammates on a ball club will razz each other.

Otherwise, just skimming a bit except for the last season update, but I agree, my grandparents had trouble quitting totally in the 1980s/90s, so I think it's going to be hard for Webb to quit. Give him a heart attack and make it serious enough, *maybe*.

But, seriously, it sounds like Elvis is going to live, and fromw hat I've read, he was heavily into drugs. If he quit those, I think that's good enough, becasue I've heard that he was really hooked. I could be wrong, though.

With no SNL I wonder if baseball might try to step in with a "Game of the Week" type thing, either live ont he West Coast or a tape daly game on Saturday nights. Baseball has made some really bad decisions regarding marketing itself, and has been since the lackadaisical 1960s and 1970s when they took for granted they were stillt he national pasttime because they were living in 1952. It'd be nice to see some good come out of this. Of course, college football could, too. Of course, it's possible the Best of Carson stays for quite a while longer, too.

 

[Brainbin]

Olympics Fever

The official logo of the Games of the XXI Olympiad. [1]​

One in every four years, they were inescapable. And each successive Olympiad seemed to be ever more ostentatious and elaborate than the last. The Summer and Winter Games taking place in the year 1976 were no exception. Both were celebrated in North America; the XII Olympic Winter Games, which took place first, in February, were held in Denver, Colorado, in the United States (the first American games since 1960). Thirty-seven countries participated. [2]

US Vice-President Edmund Muskie officially opened the Denver Games, just as the incumbent Vice-President had done for the two previous Olympiads held in the United States. His opponents decried what they viewed as tantamount to an early campaign appearance (as he was running for President that year), but there was little alternative, as President Hubert H. Humphrey made relatively few public appearances during his final year in office (though Muskie would later reveal in his memoirs that Humphrey had very much wanted to open the Olympics, but decided against it on account of health concerns). The situation would echo that of then-Vice-President Richard Nixon, who had opened the Squaw Valley Olympics in 1960 (and, not surprisingly, Nixon was one of Muskie’s few defenders on the issue among the Republicans; what’s sauce for the goose…).

Team Canada, for its part, won seven medals at Denver, including two golds, which was good for fifth in the overall standings. [3] It was an underwhelming performance for the Dominion (Prime Minister Robert Stanfield, whose government had invested heavily in sport and athletics, had confidently predicted a top-three finish overall for Canada), but the country did very well indeed in specific fields; particularly alpine skiing, where the “Crazy Canucks” won all three medals in contention for the Men’s Downhill Skiing event (American-born Ken Read took gold). [4] Kathy Kreiner also won the gold medal for Women’s Giant Slalom. Canadian athletes also performed respectably on ice: Toller Cranston won silver for Men’s Figure Skating (behind only the superlative British Olympian, John Curry), Cathy Priestner won bronze for Women’s 500-Metre Speed Skating; and 17-year-old Gaétan Boucher also took the bronze medal in Men’s 1,000-Metre Speed Skating, marking an auspicious debut to a very lengthy and successful career. However, due to disputes with regards to the status of amateur and professional eligibility differing among competitor nations, Canada did not compete in their national sport of ice hockey for the second consecutive Winter Olympiad. [5] Their bitter rivals, Soviet Russia, who had won both the 1972 and 1974 Summit Series against them, took the gold medal. [6]

But in the end, the Winter Olympics had always been a mere sideshow to those held in the Summer. The Games of the XXI Olympiad were held in Montreal that July. The largest city in Canada, it had been awarded the Summer Games while still basking in the afterglow of the triumphant Expo ’67 and, perhaps as a result, it proved rather ill-equipped to handle the mounting costs to meet their sky-high ambitions; the province of Quebec and (in particular) the Dominion of Canada had to cover many of those costs when the city of Montreal found itself in over its head, going into debt to support the Games for the first time in Olympics history; a great deal of the federal money went to pay overtime, as many of the venues, including Olympic Stadium, completed construction only months or even just weeks ahead of the Opening Ceremonies. [7] 116 countries participated in these games, over triple the number of competing nations in the Winter Games. [8] HM Elizabeth II, in her capacity as Queen of Canada, was invited to open the Montreal Games – the first time that she did so in her nearly quarter-century-long reign (her consort, Prince Philip, had opened the 1956 games at Melbourne in her stead). There was some trepidation that militant Quebec separatists might commit acts of terror in protest, as they had done in the past, and perhaps taking inspiration from the PLO at Munich in 1972; but security was tight, and the Games proceeded without incident [9] – at least, of that particular variety, as a Soviet pentathlete was caught cheating with a rigged épée.

The host country of Canada performed moderately well, winning 18 medals overall, including four golds. This was good enough to put the Dominion in tenth place at the final standings. Eleven of these eighteen medals were won in the field of swimming, including two golds, both won by the same man: Graham Smith, for the 100- and 200-Metre Backstroke. He would win four medals overall, the most of any Canadian Olympian (and was, accordingly, chosen as flag-bearer). Canada also won the gold medal for the High Jump (by Greg Joy) and the C-1 500-Metre Canoeing event (by John Wood). [10] In an upset victory, the Canadian basketball team also won the bronze medal over the Soviet team; though the game was invented by a Canadian (James Naismith), it still did not have the same significance or merit the same pride as the national sport of ice hockey. However, their success in basketball piqued the interest of those in far different places. And in the grand scheme of things, this surprising loss did little to deter the Soviets, who finished first overall in the medal standings for both the Summer and the Winter Games. Indeed, the upper reaches proved remarkably stable: East Germany finished second at both Games, the United States finished third, and West Germany finished fourth. [11] Canada was the only other country to finish within the Top 10 at both Games.

Promotional poster for the Games of the XXI Olympiad, as aired in the United States.
​

There were many reasons why the Olympics “mattered”, even though other sporting events, including those of similar scope, longevity, and variety, did not. The “ancient legacy” dating back to before the birth of Christ was among the least significant of these. Any connection was so utterly tenuous as to be virtually meaningless (as was the case with several events at the Olympics; including, most notably, Greco-Roman Wrestling). Surely, any faithful Olympic Games would feature only those events contested in Ancient Greece, with all-male contestants competing in the nude, awarded only herbal wreaths as prizes. But the modern Olympics were an international status symbol, and had been ever since Adolf Hitler had attempted to use them to promote the superiority of Nazi Germany in the 1936 Games, held in his capital of Berlin. For in order to use the Olympics to glorify his regime, the creative minds of his regime had to work to glorify the Olympics. And they would introduce many extravagances that had no precedence, but would forever become associated with the Games, even after they resumed once World War II ended (ironically enough, in London). The most significant legacy of the XI Olympiad, however, was undoubtedly the documentary film Olympia, directed by Leni Riefenstahl. Less controversial than Triumph of the Will (if only relatively speaking), and far more influential, the film would forever define future coverage of the Olympic Games (and sporting events in general), primarily through the use of innovative visual techniques.

As might be expected to result from an aesthetic created by Nazi Germany, and pioneered on the big screen, Olympian athletes tended to be depicted as distant and iconic figures who were inherently great, for inscrutable reasons; this did not gel with more contemporary approaches to sports journalism, and one of the leading lights in that field, Roone Arledge, the President of ABC Sports, decided to do something about it. The Alphabet Network would air both the Winter Games in Denver and the Summer Games in Montreal, and given that both locales were in North America (and were connected by road to the two major television hubs of New York City and Los Angeles), this allowed Arledge the maximum saturation necessary to implement his bold new strategy. As far as he was concerned, what had been fatally lacking from Olympics coverage was the “human element”; the viewers watching at home needed to be able to relate to their athletes in order to root for them. Because if they rooted for them, they would naturally be more willing to watch them. He road-tested his theory in Denver (about a day’s drive from Los Angeles), making sure to interview all of the American athletes (especially those favoured for their respective events) in advance of the Games; any good “leads” would be followed-up as necessary. Arledge specifically sought out good stories, good drama, that he was sure would resonate with viewers at home. One of the newsmen that Denver would turn into a star was Max Rochelle, an African-American sports reporter brought in from KETV Omaha (much closer to Denver than LA), whose onscreen presence and rapport with interviewees meshed perfectly with Arledge’s vision for the Games.

But Denver, though successful, was merely the dry-run for Montreal. Americans simply weren’t as interested in winter sports, despite much of its population continuing to live in cold-weather regions. Nonetheless, the focus on the “human element” did pay dividends, as the few gold-medal winners within the American delegation (including figure-skater Dorothy Hamill and downhill skier Cindy Nelson [12]) quickly became national celebrities. For his reporting, Rochelle was so well-received by audiences and network brass, that he soon found himself in the forefront of a massive media delegation that virtually swamped Montreal in July; indeed, local commentators would note that the swarm of ABC-TV cameras outnumbered those of all the Canadian networks and stations combined. And contrary to what might be expected, American Olympians weren’t the sole focus of their reporting (though they certainly got the lion’s share). Arledge was not one to let petty nationalism get in the way of a good story, good drama, which he would gladly take where he could get it. Not surprisingly, Canada proved an ample source of these. Even in Denver, the downhill skiing clean sweep by the “Crazy Canucks” proved surprisingly popular with American viewers, even though an American had finished fourth in that event (granted, gold-medalist Ken Read was American-born).

In the Summer Olympics, Team Canada had done best in swimming, coming in third overall, and the Americans had finished first (East Germany came in second); four-time medalist Graham Smith still received almost as much positive coverage as the medals-laden USA Men’s swim team. Praise was also heaped on bronze-medal winning archer Lucille Lemay and the bronze-winning Canada Men’s basketball team, despite the fact the USA had also won gold in those events. And as yet another indicator of détente, even Soviet athletes were given ample airtime. However, and without question, American Olympians were the undisputed stars of Olympics coverage on ABC. Four-time gold-medalist, swimmer John Nader, was the most successful athlete representing Team USA that year (and was accordingly chosen as flag-bearer), but other major celebrities produced by these games included pentathlete Bruce Jenner, and the USA Men’s boxing team, most prominently “Sugar” Ray Leonard; his ascent could be partly credited to his terrific rapport with Rochelle, and the two would be linked for the remainder of their careers, much as was already the case with Muhammad Ali and Howard Cosell before them (which resulted in much good-natured levity at ABC Sports, that Rochelle was the Eve Harrington to Cosell’s Margo Channing – a comparison that amused Arledge, “so long as that doesn’t make me Addison DeWitt”). The success in turning Olympians into flesh-and-blood humans was a vindication for the embattled Arledge; having so spectacularly failed as a variety producer earlier that season, he had decided to play the game by his own rules, and in doing so made an indelible mark on popular perception of the Olympic Games…

---

[1] The logo is identical to that of OTL with one key difference: the lack of an acute accent (in French, l’accent aigu) over the “e” in Montreal. This is because, IOTL, that spelling was officially applied to the name of the city in English as well as in French; despite the fact that not only does English lack the acute accent (except in loanwords), but the accepted English pronunciation (Mon-tree-all) does not even employ the accent in the same way that the French language does! ITTL, as Canada is providing the vast majority of the funding, and Montreal continues to be recognized as a thoroughly bilingual city (coupled with the status of English as the global lingua franca), the English spelling prevails. And yes, there is widespread complaint about this; in fact, vandals commonly add the accents to signs displaying the logo wherever and whenever possible.

[2] IOTL, the XII Winter Olympiad was held in Innsbruck, Austria (which had previously hosted the Winter Games in 1964), after Denver, which had won the games in 1970, was forced to withdraw from hosting two years later following a referendum, due largely to financial concerns which did not exist ITTL. Therefore, Denver hosts the games, and Colorado gets a head start on forming its reputation as the Florida of ski resorts.

[3] Canada won three medals at the Games in Innsbruck IOTL: one gold (Kathy Kreiner), one silver (Cathy Priestner), and one bronze (Toller Cranston).

[4] Read won the gold, Dave Irwin won the silver, and Jim Hunter won the bronze. Note that, IOTL, all three winners came from countries on the Alps, where the Games were being held (Austria naturally took the gold). ITTL, all three winners come from a country on the Rockies, where the Games are being held (American Andy Mill finishes fourth).

[5] To make a long story short, Soviet semi-professionals were permitted to participate as “amateurs”, whereas Canadian semipros were not.

[6] IOTL, Canada won the 1972 Summit Series, only to lose in 1974.

[7] Montreal also went into debt to finance the Olympics IOTL, forcing the province of Quebec to cover them, though the city remained obliged to repay the province (and it would take them thirty years to do so in full). ITTL, the federal government shoulders most of the debt, and does not oblige Montreal to repay them, seeing the event as one that should promote federal unity and camaraderie; unsurprisingly, this endears many Montrealers to Prime Minister Stanfield and his government. All of the major Olympics venues are fully complete by July 1, 1976, ITTL (including the tower on Olympic Stadium), though (as IOTL) much of the transportation infrastructure (including the infamous “white elephant”, Mirabel International Airport, and the routes connecting it to Downtown Montreal) is still under construction as the Games are taking place. (For some OTL perspective, note that, although Montreal was the first city to go into debt over the Olympics, it was certainly not the last).

[8] New Zealand, acting in concert with the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, officially extended a trade and cultural boycott against South Africa as part of the Commonwealth Trade Agreement, which extended to sporting events (thus butterflying the rugby match that would inspire the boycott conducted by 28 African nations).

[9] Because of much poorer Canadian relations with Red China, they recognize Team Republic of China without hassle ITTL.

[10] Canada won eleven medals IOTL, none of which were gold – the first and only time to date that a host country failed to win any at the Summer Games (it happened several times at the Winter Games, including to Canada – again – at Calgary 1988). Of those eleven medals, eight were in the field of swimming, including all six bronzes. The other three silver medals were awarded to Joy, Wood, and equestrian Michel Vaillancourt. Notably, Graham Smith failed to win any medals as an individual (placing 4th in several events); the Canadian basketball team also finished fourth, losing to none other than the Soviets in the bronze-medal game.

[11] IOTL, West Germany finished fifth at the Winter Games as opposed to fourth (where Norway ranked instead), though it did finish fourth at the Summer Games.

[12] Nelson received the bronze medal for the same event IOTL. Once again, the Olympians who finished ahead of her hailed from Alpine countries.

---

Final Medal Count for the Dominion of Canada:

1976 Denver (Winter): 2 Gold (Ken Read, Men’s Downhill Skiing; Kathy Kreiner, Women’s Giant Slalom); 2 Silver (Dave Irwin, Men’s Downhill Skiing; Toller Cranston, Men’s Figure Skating); 3 Bronze (Jim Hunter, Men’s Downhill Skiing; Kathy Priestner, Women’s 500-Metre Speed Skating; Gaétan Boucher, Men’s 1,000-Metre Speed Skating).

1976 Montreal (Summer): 4 Gold (Graham Smith, Men’s 100m Breaststroke and 200m Breaststroke; Greg Joy, Men’s High Jump; John Wood, Men’s C-1 500-Metre Canoeing); 7 Silver (Michel Vaillancourt, Men’s Individual Jumping Equestrian; Ian Seale, Don Domansky, Leighton Hope, Brian Saunders, Men’s 4x400-Metre Relay; Graham Smith, Stephen Pickell, Clay Evans, Gary Macdonald, Men’s 4x100-Metre Medley Relay; Nancy Garapick, Women’s 100-Metre Backstroke and 200-Metre Backstroke; Cheryl Gibson, Women’s 400-Metre Individual Medley; Susan Sloan, Robin Corsiglia, Wendy Hogg, Anne Jardin, Women’s 4x400-Metre Medley Relay); 7 Bronze (Team Canada, Men’s Basketball; Lucille Lemay, Women’s Archery; Ian Clyde, Men’s Flyweight Boxing; Graham Smith, Men’s 400-Metre Individual Medley; Gail Amundrud, Women’s 200-Metre Freestyle; Becky Smith, Women’s 400-Metre Individual Medley; Gail Amundrud, Becky Smith, Barbara Clark, Anne Jardin, Women’s 4x100-Metre Freestyle Relay).

---

Special thanks to Chipperback for his help and advice in the making of this update!

My apologies for getting my Godwin in this timeline, but I felt that a few usually verboten terms would serve to emphasize the need to “humanize” the Olympic Games, as nothing quite evokes cold and sterile like the Third Reich. And since this is a popular culture timeline, addressing the impact thereupon by the works of Leni Riefenstahl, however abhorrent the regime venerated by her ouevre, is important. In short, she changed the Olympics; and so too did Roone Arledge, though obviously in very different respects.

And yes, I only had the time and the energy to calculate an alternate medal count for Canada, which won a mere 14 medals at both games IOTL (increased to 25 ITTL). Compare the United States, which won 104 altogether, or the Soviet Union, which won a combined 152 medals. Why did Canada do so much better ITTL? I direct you to this previous update for some background on the situation. Most of the athletes performing are the same as IOTL, despite their youth at the time of the POD, because Olympians are trained from a very young age, and therefore they’re more butterfly-resistant than others who achieved notoriety in their youth IOTL.

I hope you all enjoyed reliving the thrill of the Olympics – either literally, if you can remember Montreal 1976, or metaphorically, in reference to London 2012, if you cannot. And if you can’t stand the Olympic Games – believe me, I sympathize. And look on the bright side! Back in this era, we only had to suffer through them one year in four, rather than every other year. So we won’t be dealing with them again for at least another twenty updates or so, and who knows how the geopolitical landscape will look by then?

 

[NCW8]

Yet another fascinating update !

There were many reasons why the Olympics “mattered”, even though other sporting events, including those of similar scope, longevity, and variety, did not. The “ancient legacy” dating back to before the birth of Christ was among the least significant of these. Any connection was so utterly tenuous as to be virtually meaningless (as was the case with several events at the Olympics; including, most notably, Greco-Roman Wrestling). Surely, any faithful Olympic Games would feature only those events contested in Ancient Greece, with all-male contestants competing in the nude, awarded only herbal wreaths as prizes. But the modern Olympics were an international status symbol, and had been ever since Adolf Hitler had attempted to use them to promote the superiority of Nazi Germany in the 1936 Games, held in his capital of Berlin. For in order to use the Olympics to glorify his regime, the creative minds of his regime had to work to glorify the Olympics. And they would introduce many extravagances that had no precedence, but would forever become associated with the Games, even after they resumed once World War II ended.

For example, the Olympic Torch Relay was created for the Berlin Olympics.

In the Summer Olympics, Team Canada had done best in swimming, coming in third overall, and the Americans had finished first (East Germany came in second); four-time medalist Graham Smith still received almost as much positive coverage as the medals-laden USA Men’s swim team. Praise was also heaped on bronze-medal winning archer Lucille Lemay and the bronze-winning Canada Men's basketball team, despite the fact the USA had also won gold in those events. And as yet another indicator of détente, even Soviet athletes were given ample airtime.

Did Nadia Comăneci score a perfect ten in the gymnastics ? IOTL it caused a minor difficulty because the electronic scoreboard could only display scores up to 9.99 . Her score was shown as 1.00 and it took a while before the crowd could work out what it meant.

Cheers,
Nigel.

 

[Orville_third]

While Montreal may not have been as much of a financial disaster as OTL, it likely was still an expensive thing. (I once saw a book describing the Montreal games as a disaster, along with various other noted disasters not involving finance.)
One minor error- the 1960 Games were in Squaw VALLEY.

 

[phx1138]

Nice work, as usual.

I confess, I don't really remember Montreal, except for the financial troubles. (I had no idea they'd cut it so close.) I'd have been happy to see Toller Cranston break his leg & never be heard from again, myself. (I never liked him. Notice, for a change, I'm not suggesting he be caught in an avalanche or decapitated by another skater, or something. {That wouldn't displease me, either.})

Given the butterflies, can we presume Nadia still did as well as OTL & earned the first 10.0? Or did the judges not cheat? (I don't expect the DDR doping would have been discovered...)

ITTL, all three winners come from a country on the Rockies, where the Games are being held (American Andy Mill finishes fourth).

What, the Swiss forgot how to ski? (Sorry, I've never been impressed with Canada's Olympic performance. My first thought on hearing Moscow was going to boycott was, "Canada might actually win medals".)

To make a long story short, Soviet semi-professionals were permitted to participate as “amateurs”, whereas Canadian semipros were not.

Soviet pentathlete was caught cheating with a rigged épée.

So that's why Sable lost.

the national sport of ice hockey

Doubtless you know, but for those who don't: hockey's the de facto national sport, but the official one is lacrosse.

the film would forever define future coverage of the Olympic Games (and sporting events in general)

I did not know about his. Can you offer a couple of examples?

Arledge was not one to let petty nationalism get in the way of a good story, good drama

A model, sadly, abandoned since. Did you notice the U.S. networks trying to claim Canadian successes? They're "North American"...

“Sugar” Ray Leonard

I imagine you know he disliked being called "Sugar", feeling that was reserved for Ray Robinson, who he admired.

 

[vultan]

Don't have much to say, except that it was a great update! Not a huge Olympics fan, I'm sorry to say.

 

[e of pi]

So, this isn't really relevant to the Olympics post, which I did like, particularly the revolution in coverage--growing up in the 90s, it's simply "always been that way," so it was interesting to learn about when it started always being that way, as it wee. However, that aside, I was digging around on youtube, and came across a few early promos for Star Trek, which I thought were interesting examples of how the show was sold to audiences back in the period.

This one was pretty interesting, though it's clearly pretty early in development. Also note how "first adult sci-fi" clearly meant something different back then--unless it's not accident how much action Kirk got a piece of.

Then there's this one, which uses footage from several episodes, and apparently is from the second or third season.

This one must be pretty early--it still uses "Vulcanian" to refer to Spock's race.

This one is from the third season--note the Friday night timeslot, and that it seems direct strongly at the fans who'd managed to get it renewed. "Fine, you got it. Now show up and prove we didn't make a mistake." Also interesting that it's in character as Kirk--and appears to be set up to be recut for various local stations (the jump between "here on" and the station name is very noticeable--so they could substitute in alternate audio of the appropriate local affiliate).